Maybe O'Donnell should take a lesson from Joe Miller and just handcuff reporters who want to ask her questions.

Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:26 am

FranktheP

Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 1369
Location: East Coast, Fuck You!

She is a bigger idiot than even I give her credit for being.

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

WILMINGTON, Del. - Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.

The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.

O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.

"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.

The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.

"I guess he can't handle it," she said.

O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."

Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."

Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:09 am

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption

it's settled then, more lulz. o'donnell FTW

Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:42 am

WrathChild

Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Reno eNVy

Don't get me wrong, the lady is an idiot, but her questioning the separation of church and state isn't totally off base, that phrase is never used in the constitution. I believe it was lifted from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. Then maybe later by the supreme court. Somebody else can look up it's origins, but it isn't in the constitution. However, it's a term used to describe certain parts of the constitution. So just because the term isn't in there doesn't mean the idea isn't.

Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:08 pm

name

Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955

here is the video.
amazing.

<object><param><param><param></object>

Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:52 pm

Charlie Foxtrot

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY

WrathChild wrote: Don't get me wrong, the lady is an idiot, but her questioning the separation of church and state isn't totally off base, that phrase is never used in the constitution. I believe it was lifted from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. Then maybe later by the supreme court. Somebody else can look up it's origins, but it isn't in the constitution. However, it's a term used to describe certain parts of the constitution. So just because the term isn't in there doesn't mean the idea isn't.

The phrase "Separation of church and state" has been used in a variety of court cases and has established a strong precedent. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" isn't in the constitution either, but it's become a component of how free speech is defined.

Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:59 pm

AdamBomb

Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3183
Location: Louisiana

name wrote: here is the video.
amazing.

<object><param><param><param></object>

I tried to listen, but that dude's insane gumchewing (the cameraman) is way too destracting. At least in my speakers thats what it sounds like.

Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:03 pm

WrathChild

Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Reno eNVy

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:

WrathChild wrote: Don't get me wrong, the lady is an idiot, but her questioning the separation of church and state isn't totally off base, that phrase is never used in the constitution. I believe it was lifted from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote. Then maybe later by the supreme court. Somebody else can look up it's origins, but it isn't in the constitution. However, it's a term used to describe certain parts of the constitution. So just because the term isn't in there doesn't mean the idea isn't.

The phrase "Separation of church and state" has been used in a variety of court cases and has established a strong precedent. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" isn't in the constitution either, but it's become a component of how free speech is defined.

Pretty much what I said. But her argument, however wrong it is, is a common one amongst fundamentalists and radicals. I don't find it shocking at all that she said this. Many religious leaders use this as the basis of their argument that the framers of the constitution always intended Christianity to be the basis of our policy. Again, not surprised. In fact, I'd wager several elected officials truly believe "separation of church and state" is a creation of liberal supreme courts and not what the founding fathers intended.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:36 am

the meanCertified O.G.

Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6500
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio

WrathChild wrote: But her argument, however wrong it is, is a common one amongst fundamentalists and radicals. I don't find it shocking at all that she said this. Many religious leaders use this as the basis of their argument that the framers of the constitution always intended Christianity to be the basis of our policy. Again, not surprised. In fact, I'd wager several elected officials truly believe "separation of church and state" is a creation of liberal supreme courts and not what the founding fathers intended.

Well, yes, but...

She didn't even seem to grasp the conservative talking point that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

It's a clear argument: the Constitution simply precludes the federal government from establishing an official religion, and that is all it prohibits.

But it sounds like she just heard the talking point, but didn't even understand the talking point. She sputtered, "phrase" at some point, meaning that the phrase isn't there, but it seemed like she thought that there was no mention of church/state at all in the First Amendment.

Also, when the law students chuckle, I love how she looks at them and laughs, thinking she just got in a zinger.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:46 am

WrathChild

Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Reno eNVy

the mean wrote:

WrathChild wrote: But her argument, however wrong it is, is a common one amongst fundamentalists and radicals. I don't find it shocking at all that she said this. Many religious leaders use this as the basis of their argument that the framers of the constitution always intended Christianity to be the basis of our policy. Again, not surprised. In fact, I'd wager several elected officials truly believe "separation of church and state" is a creation of liberal supreme courts and not what the founding fathers intended.

Well, yes, but...

She didn't even seem to grasp the conservative talking point that "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

It's a clear argument: the Constitution simply precludes the federal government from establishing an official religion, and that is all it prohibits.

But it sounds like she just heard the talking point, but didn't even understand the talking point. She sputtered, "phrase" at some point, meaning that the phrase isn't there, but it seemed like she thought that there was no mention of church/state at all in the First Amendment.

Also, when the law students chuckle, I love how she looks at them and laughs, thinking she just got in a zinger.

I absolutely agree. I thought the shock on this forum was coming from the fact that she used the talking point not that she had zero knowledge of the basis its used upon. Misunderstanding. I blame it on the bold letters. I would have bolded her response to the "it's called the first amendment" comment. The back peddling and the exposure of her vastly limited knowledge of the document that governs this country and what not.

Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:05 am

the meanCertified O.G.

Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6500
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio

Miss her yet?

Christine O'Donnell wrote: Tragedy comes in threes. Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards's passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.

Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:44 pm

Captiv8

Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8546
Location: Third Coast

the mean wrote: Miss her yet?

Christine O'Donnell wrote: Tragedy comes in threes. Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards's passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.

My God. I'd wager she thinks Pearl Harbor happened right around 9/11, which still makes no sense. These are the people in charge? It's hard not to be jaded and cynical in this nation.

Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:20 pm

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6877
Location: Northern New Jersey

Captiv8 wrote: These are the people in charge?

No. She's not in charge of anything. She's unemployed.

Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:49 pm

GrantherBirdlyD&D addict

Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 3145

tragedies come in threes: dinosaur extinction, tupac's death, and I had turkey for dinner, which isn't a tragedy except the turkey had to die.